Jan 3, 2011

Q&A: On Churchill's relationship with Islam

Some important questions and no-nonsense answers:

Q: How did Churchill see Islam?

A: Churchill saw misogynistic Islam for what it was. In a word: totalitarian. Whereas Obama likes to feel facts, Churchill didn’t care for fantasy describing the so-called religion of peace in the frankest and therefore most politically-incorrect terms. Of Islam he said: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.” Today, CNN would censor Churchill, without doubt.

Q: What shaped Churchill’s views?

A:Experience. But also his compassion. Over the years, Churchill, who was well travelled, had witnessed firsthand the realities of life for the individual under Islam. “A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men,” he wrote.

Q: Why did Churchill warn us about Islamo-fundamentalism?

A: Churchill argued in The River War, First edition, Vol. II (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899), pp. 248-250, that Muslims could display splendid qualities: “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.” To Churchill, however: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.” Women and children were and still are vulnerable, a reality, many feminists haven’t dealt with.

Q: Where did he see Islamism heading?

A: Churchill thought militant Islam like Nazism was a cancer. “It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” Later too, he was well aware of Hitler’s close relationship to radical Islam, a truth our campaigning journalists are not ready (or willing) to acknowledge now. Mein Kampf is still popular in the Middle East.

"It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

I disagree. For one, Christianity never struggled against science, although some clerics may have struggled with politicians, scientists, movements, other clerics, etc. For another, King Sobieski and Charles Martel were not scientists - Churchill was no fan of Europeans - French or Polish, he had disdain for both. It was Christianity which united Europe ultimately into nation states and it was the Church which gave us monasteries which preserved the knowledge of writing, medieval science and first universities - i.e. Cathedral Schools. Church Canon Law and Natural Law Theology formed the basis of the first understanding of universal human rights too and the legal system. It was pagan pre-Christian Rome which destroyed the Library of Alexandria not early Christians who were pro knowledge. Science is just a tool to improve our material lives and not an end in itself.

Point taken. I agree with your comments although it depends on what one means by Christianity. Obviously there were scientific disputes withinofficial “Christendom” and later intellectual divides between Catholics and Protestants. But overall it was (as you point out) a positive force. Most of my favorite Christian scientists were fiercely independent individuals.